Standing Committee E

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Clause 20 - Restriction on disclosure of information

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 47, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'on' to end to line 25 and insert— 
 '(a) conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine, or both; or 
 (b) summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in
clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'a' to end of line 25 and insert 
 'term of imprisonment not exceeding three years'.
 The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) who was speaking in our previous sitting has been called away.

Paul Goodman: If I am not mistaken, I was speaking when the Committee ended under the chairmanship of Mr. Gale.

Joe Benton: In that event, I apologise. I have been misinformed. I was told that Mr. Carmichael was speaking.

Paul Goodman: I assumed that you had mispronounced my name in such a way that it had come out as Mr. Carmichael. I cannot believe for a moment that you would be capable of any error; I still refuse to believe it. It may be as well that you were not in the Chair at the end of the previous sitting, because you would have observed a distressing divergence of view between my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
 My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is usually the most emollient of men, accused my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne of drafting what he thought was a slightly inadequate—he used stronger language than that—amendment on punishment for a member of the board who was found guilty of disclosing information via a court. All that I did was to complicate the position of my own party even further by saying that, in my view—

David Wilshire: Is that the third way?

Paul Goodman: As there are only three Conservative members of the Committee, my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that there cannot be a fourth party. My hon. Friends, as well as the right hon. Member for
 Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will understand that historical reference. The point that I was making before my hon. Friend diverted me slightly was that it seems to me—as it seems to all Conservative members of the Committee and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—that a fine for disclosing this sensitive information would be completely inadequate.
 I was about to confuse my hon. Friends by saying that, even if they did not want to press the matter to a Division, I did. However, I have received assurances from them that they may be of a similar mind and bowing, as I always do, to their complete wisdom in all matters, I shall allow an opportunity for the Minister to respond.

Seamus Mallon: I shall continue to support the position of the board. I regard anyone who breaks a confidence, having been given sensitive information, as not just breaking his word to the board, his colleagues and his political party, but to society at large. I would have no sympathy with such a person or promote his case.
 I have been in politics a long time and have seen the divulging of information. I have never yet seen a case brought to law in relation to a political party or an organisation in which it was not established who the person involved was. We could be 100 per cent., 90 per cent. or 50 per cent. sure, but one thing in politics and this way of life is certain. We could never find the person who did it and be certain that we could get a conviction. The discussion is worthy but while I would throw the book at someone who broke his word in such a way, we must remember that that is the reality. 
 Ask any Secretary of State who has served in the north of Ireland and he or she will readily confirm that it is unique when it comes to the leaking of sensitive information. There are those who might cause apprehension by their presence on the board, but other parties in the north of Ireland are so adept at leaking that one could envisage problems arising over who will get there first. I do not want to make a song and dance about it. I have no time for any of those people, or for anyone who would break that kind of confidence. 
 If the libertarian wing of the Tory party succeeds and upsets the five years measure, I would weep no tears. However, I know that leaking works in various directions. For years there have been leaks not just about the Government, but from the Government; not just about the police, but by the police; not just about policing boards, but by policing boards. For as long as our democratic system continues—and it should always be maintained—leaking will continue. It is good to have arguments and discussion about what the penalties might be. However, while those are worthy and worth putting forward, I am confident that that power will not be exercised, or even would be able to be exercised, to bring about the result that we are now discussing.

Gregory Campbell: I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull on exactly where one would like to see the conviction leading. I doubt whether I would go as far the hon. Gentleman went—he described his views as being close to the ''hang 'em
 and flog 'em'' people—but I would lean more closely towards his proposition than that of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who described himself in terms of moderation. Given the way things are going in Northern Ireland, those who describe themselves as moderates may become an endangered species. It would appear from the opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph last week that about one third of the Unionist community shares the right hon. Gentleman's views. Of course an election will be held and we will find out, although the example of previous elections tells us that there are some who would prefer there not to be an election.
 There is the issue about whether a term of imprisonment ought to be included as an option. The position in Northern Ireland is considerably different from that in most of mainland Great Britain. Information that is supplied in such circumstances in most of the UK may lead to a headline in the newspaper, or perhaps to some discomfort for a day or two. For the most part, information passed to particular groups in Northern Ireland can in certain circumstances lead to much more serious consequences. For that reason I support the inclusion of a term of imprisonment, albeit possibly one that is shorter than that recommended by the hon. Member for Solihull.

Jane Kennedy: It might be of benefit to Committee members if I drew their attention to the code of ethics for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They might find it useful when we come to discuss other clauses later today and on Tuesday. I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for giving me permission to place copies on the Table. If there are not enough copies, I will ensure that more are provided early next week.
 This has been a useful debate. It may help if I explained why the penalty was set at this level and if I explained the other sanctions that are available under the law, which I touched upon in earlier debates and which could, in certain circumstances, apply to an improper disclosure of sensitive information by one of the groups specified in the clause. 
 The penalty was set at this level to mirror the provisions of section 63(3) of the 1998 Act, which makes it an offence for the police ombudsman to disclose, other than in the specific terms of that section of the Act, any information gained during the course of her work. We believe that it is appropriate for the penalty for improper disclosure to be consistent with the other penalty for disclosure. 
 Part of the reason why neither penalty is more severe is that the offence described here deals only with the act of disclosure. That is a serious matter; I accept the representations that I have received on that from both sides of the Committee. You have known me for many years, Mr. Benton, and I hope that you will agree that I take a liberal attitude on many aspects of political life. The longer that I spend dealing with the responsibilities of my post as security Minister in Northern Ireland, the less liberal I am inclined to be. However, with regard to this amendment, I urge my 
 colleagues to restrain themselves from being tempted to enter into the auction that we got involved in before we broke for lunch. 
 There are many other offences within the criminal law that could, in certain circumstances, apply to improper disclosure of sensitive information. As I said in an earlier debate, depending on the use to which any information gained in the context of the board's work is put, the person disclosing it could be charged, for example, with conspiracy or a specific offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, such as disclosing information likely to prejudice a terrorist investigation or collecting or communicating information likely to be of use to terrorists. 
 The offence set up here does not override those other offences, nor does it seek to replace them in respect of board members. The ordinary criminal law will apply to those individuals just as it would to you, Mr. Benton, or to me. The act of improper disclosure constitutes an additional offence for which they should receive an appropriate penalty.

Seamus Mallon: First, in talking about making people liable under the law for the disclosure of sensitive information, is there not more chance of bringing a case properly if there is documentation, rather than an absence of documentation? Secondly, in the type of circumstances that the Minister describes—I do not want to get into an auction either—what might be in the rules that might be agreed by the policing board in future in relation to those who may have given sensitive information? It may be that nothing is possible or that the rules are not relevant in law, but we should try, rather than pursue a method that will never bring people in front of the courts.

Jane Kennedy: The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been successful fairly recently in tracking down leaks of sensitive information and in bringing charges, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, against those whom they believe to be responsible. I accept that the police are not always successful and my hon. Friend has greater knowledge and experience of such matters in Northern Ireland than me.
 The offence as described in the Bill affords the police an opportunity to take action if sensitive information is not properly disclosed. Should an individual member of the board be found to have done such a thing, there are powers to remove that member. It is dishonourable to disclose such information because that person will have betrayed the confidence of other members of the board and the wider public who gave their authority to the board member. The clause as drafted is adequate without the stronger penalty urged by Opposition Members.

Seamus Mallon: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point and for her reference to certain irregularities by the police recently in relation to the divulging of information. I know a little—or, rather, a lot—about that, as do other hon. Members from the north of Ireland. However, no case could have been brought had there been no ability to seize documents. It is the documents rather than the information that could lead to successful prosecutions. In the absence of
 those documents, there will be no chance of prosecution.

Jane Kennedy: I am not entirely convinced that that is the case. Documents are more easily traced, but notes are often taken in meetings in which sensitive information is shared. One would hope that those notes would reveal who was party to the information and how it was received. I take the point that the offence is difficult to prove. My hon. Friend is right; Government leak inquiries do not have a glorious history of success. However, the clause was introduced in another place to supplement the existing safeguards in the Bill and existing legislation to ensure proper protection for disclosure of sensitive information. As I have said, I expect there to be occasions when documents would be made available to members of the board in the circumstances that I described.
 The power described in the Bill provides a useful additional safeguard. I will reflect further on proposals to extend the terms of the clause that were discussed in earlier debates, and, if appropriate, we will table amendments on Report. On the specific issue of the sentence, however, I will resist the amendment and encourage my hon. Friends to do the same should there be a Division.

David Trimble: I expected that we would have a short debate on the amendment I moved before lunch, so I am pleasantly surprised by the length of our discussion. I am also pleasantly surprised by the support for the amendment. Although he is no longer here, I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for his support. I am also pleased to have the support of the hon. Member for East Londonderry and that of the two hon. Gentlemen to my right; both literally and figuratively.
 The support underlines the seriousness of the matter and the desirability of the Minister to think again. She said that there were other offences and that the provision would supplement them. However, it would do a little more than that because other offences will be available only in specific circumstances, and not generally. As she originally said, the other offences depend on context and circumstances, and the use to which the information is put. The Minister needs the offence in the amendment because there might otherwise not be a penalty. 
 If the Minister relied on conspiracy or on the Terrorism Act 2000, many leaks would incur no penalty. That is wrong. It is why an offence is needed, but it is also an argument for requiring an offence that carries a substantial penalty. Mere leakage cannot be considered to be a matter of no significance because leaked information that does not give rise to offences could yet cause serious damage and, of course, undermine the integrity of operations. I ask the Minister to think again, although we shall have to press the amendment. 
 I was pleased that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about his desire to throw the book at the leaker. If he will forgive me for saying this, one can throw the book much more effectively if it is a good, heavy book. I take his point that leakers 
 often do not get caught. However, leakers would be caught more regularly if we were not hamstrung by bad legislation on intercepted communications, which is a serious impediment to police operations. 
 The Minister may know that, for the last 10 years, I have pressed to make the law more sensible. It has proved difficult to deal with organised crime—terrorism is a species of organised crime—in Northern Ireland using current law on intercepted communications. The Minister has only to look at experiences in other jurisdictions to find out how right that is. If we changed the law on intercepted communications, leakers would be caught more regularly. 
 I cannot avoid building on the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about the infrequency with which leakers are caught. That reinforces my point from an earlier debate about the foolishness of the disclosure provisions to the board. They are drawn too widely, which means that an offence is needed. However, the likelihood that the offence may not be as effective as we would like underlines the foolishness of the provision in the Bill. 
 We think that the amendment is important and worth pressing to a vote, as my hon. Friends have said. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment made: No. 76, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 31, at end add— 
 '( ) In section 59(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) at the beginning insert ''Subject to section 74A(6)''.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh raised two issues earlier, one of which was specific to the amendment we were discussing and the other that was specific, but involved general issues, too; I left that until now. I did not talk about the specific point regarding the hon. Gentleman's desire to include the ombudsman and the staff of the ombudsman. He said that there are always leaks when politicians are around; that is undoubtedly true.

Seamus Mallon: I should like an accurate quotation. I did not say that there were always leaks when politicians were around; I made it clear that leaks can come from everyone—including politicians, unfortunately—and from all forms of administration. I ask the hon. Gentleman sincerely to believe that. I
 humbly request that if he attempts to quote me, he does so accurately.

David Wilshire: I was coming to the other categories that the hon. Gentleman included, but he certainly included politicians; it is right to say that where there are politicians, there are leaks. However, if I have upset the hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly happy to apologise. Hansard will show exactly what he said, and I have no difficulty in agreeing with it, or with what he said earlier.
 The way to maximise the chances of leaks is to let documents be shown to more and more people. That is at the heart of my concern. When the hon. Gentleman said that documents should be released not only to the ombudsman but to his staff, it worried me. There are other issues. I will, for a moment, sound as though I am arguing that the relevant information in a document should go to more and more people, so if it appears that I am arguing against myself, I apologise. I want the Minister to clarify, and the best way to do that is to ask whether the provisions include this person or that person. 
 Subsection (6)(a) of new section 74A says: 
''a member of the Board or a member of the staff of the Board'',
 and subsection (6)(b) says: 
''a member of the committee or a member of the staff of the Board who provides services to the committee''.
 That is entirely proper. That is the equivalent of saying that the Clerk of the House and his staff should have all the documents that come before a Committee. I am not distinguishing politicians; some of the other members of the board may well not be professionals in the public arena. However, it is probably safe to say that quite a significant number of members of the board will have staff of their own who are distinct from the staff of the board. 
 Has any thought been given to whether a member of the board can do his job properly and fully without the use of his own resources as well as those of the board? I should be interested to know the Minister's view. Is the provision quite deliberately meant to exclude the members' personal staff? If so, it should be helpful to have that on record for the avoidance of doubt. If the provision were intended to exclude the personal staff of a member of the board, it would be helpful to have on record the Government's justification for that. I want to agree with the Government, but I need to know why they would want to exclude those people. 
 There is a worrying issue that is particularly sensitive in the case of Northern Ireland. The staff of certain political parties that are still terrorists, in my view, have managed to get themselves into hot water by leaking documents and getting hold of documents that they should not have. Sinn Fein-IRA may be admitted to the process discussed in the clause. Whether or not they renounce their arms is irrelevant; they are a terrorist organisation. If that were to happen—they have a record of leaking—the member of the board who might represent the terrorist organisation may say that he will give the document to 
 his staff. There does not have to be an attempt to burgle offices, because it will be appropriate to give documents to someone inside the system. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified such matters. 
 Will the Minister look carefully at subsection (6)(c) and (d)? Simply, an exception is the Secretary of State. Is the clause suggesting that if the Secretary of State is given information, he and only he can deal with it? At present, it seems that the Secretary of State cannot even turn to his private office and say, ''Will you find this information?'' because members of his staff would see it. Is it the Government's intention that only the Secretary of State should receive the information? 
 The same applies to the Chief Constable. If he is an exception, does that mean that he is the only police officer in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who may have the information?

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is succeeding in confusing me. He berates my amendments Nos. 97 and 99 on the grounds that I specified the staff of the ombudsman. In his view, the proposals do not apply to those staff, but to the staff of the board, the staff of members of the board and the staff of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman's argument is inconsistent. Will he clarify that the reference to the ombudsman or the Secretary of State means those who are working for them?

David Wilshire: When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I deliberately said that I would argue against myself. If I have succeeded in confusing the hon. Gentleman, I have done my job well. It is what I intended to do. The simplest way of teasing out the Government's thinking is to suggest that the number of people who have the information might be extended. He is right, however. We should keep the clause as tightly drawn as possible.
 The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself, too. If he wants me to accept that the reference to the Secretary of State is self-evidently the Secretary of State and his civil servants, why are there references to the board and to the staff of the board? If it were self-evident that a reference to the Secretary of State means the Secretary of State and his staff, surely a reference to the board would mean the board and the staff of the board. Given that the staff of the board are mentioned specifically, I am entitled to ask the Minister about the staff of the Secretary of State. 
 What about the Chief Constable? Does the provision mean that no other police officer or member of his administrative support staff is entitled to have the information? If so, that raises the weird situation in which the Chief Constable will have to type his own documents when preparing the report because no one else will be entitled to the information. I cannot believe that the Government want that. If they do, they must explain what they have in mind, given the contradiction between only mentioning the Chief Constable and the staff of the board. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. 
 I am worried about subsections (6)(f) and (5)(f), which state that one of the exceptions is 
''for the purposes of any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings''.
 Criminal proceedings contain a great number of rules, regulations and procedures to guard against the bringing of flippant and spurious prosecutions. I am happy with that. Similarly, disciplinary proceedings within the Police Service will be governed by the rules of the institutions. I am worried that civil proceedings can be taken against people for reasons other than seeking justice. They can be a means of bringing to the public domain, particularly if there were a lesser burden of proof, matters that should not be in the public domain.

Seamus Mallon: In the interests of clarity, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us an example.

David Wilshire: Any individual would need the permission of the authorities to bring criminal proceedings; before disciplinary proceedings were brought, the system would have to decide that its rules had been broken. Any citizen of the UK is entitled to start civil proceedings. Indeed, it would be possible for me to bring civil proceedings against the hon. Gentleman for libel or slander on a flimsy case. He would certainly get that laughed out of court and he would get costs, but I would have introduced the information into the public domain, using the justification that because I started a civil action—
Mr. Mallon rose—

David Wilshire: I am trying to give the hon. Gentleman his example. If I started a civil action and were prepared to pay damages, the information could be released to somebody else.

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman knows that if he brought a case against me in the courts for libel or slander he would probably win.

David Wilshire: That would be even better, because I would have achieved my nefarious aim of getting the information into the public domain without having to pay costs or damages. In fact, I might even get the leak authorised under the clause and get damages as well, which would be a bonus. None the less, I wonder whether it is right for there to be a blanket exception for civil actions. That kind of an exception is a huge loophole that would hand an opportunity to the people who do not mean the peace process any good; those who have got it in for other people. Those people may say, ''Here is an exception. I will think up a spurious civil action against somebody for something quite ridiculous. Nevertheless I will start an action, because that entitles me to put the information into the public domain.'' Will the Minister reassure me as to whether there could be some safeguards before a civil action were taken?

Paul Goodman: Perhaps the Minister will make this point in her reply; I scarcely dare suggest it. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne may be making rather heavy weather of the matter. If information were to be disclosed to the Secretary of State in certain circumstances, I suspect—although I am not a lawyer—that it would be disclosed also to senior civil servants and similar persons. In a law suit, a similar consideration could apply to the Chief Constable. We are dealing with what is essentially a new provision on the restriction of the disclosure of information and
 with exceptions to that. To make exceptions in the case of the board is, as I understand it, a new departure. I presume that the wording was included to give members of the board, or staff who work for it, some kind of clear protection in law. Perhaps the Minister will correct me when she responds, but I strongly suspect that that is the case.
 I hate to tangle with my hon. Friend, but I bring him some solace. He was right to say that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made rather heavy weather of the matter this morning by tabling his amendments relating to the ombudsman, because it could be assumed also that that ombudsman, in certain circumstances, is allowed to share information with senior members of his staff.

Jane Kennedy: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has touched on the case with regard to the Secretary of State. For example, civil servants who work in the relevant Department—in this case, the Northern Ireland Office—are deemed to be included in the reference to the Secretary of State. I understand that they are covered as a general principle of administrative law and that they are also empowered to act on the behalf of the relevant Secretary of State.

David Wilshire: I am reassured. I thought that that would be the case. How far down the chain of command does that assumption go? Are we talking about every single person who works for the Secretary of State or, as other hon. Members have said, just senior members of staff? What would be the definition of the ranks or grades that apply?

Jane Kennedy: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed response, but he is right that it would include senior officials involved in policy development. It would also involve the private offices of the Secretary of State and Ministers involved in that sort of work.

David Trimble: The Minister has given the position, as she understands it, with regard to the Secretary of State. I assume that the position of the Northern Ireland Office is the same as that of other Whitehall Departments, in that the office is simply the office of the Minister. Has the Minister turned her mind to the question of the Northern Ireland Departments in the event of devolution? The constitutional position of a Minister in Northern Ireland and the Department is radically different. The Department has a separate identity to that of the Minister. That is a rather unusual state of affairs. It has nothing to do with current legislation; it has been lying around for a long time and was caused by accident many years ago. However, there is a radically different relationship. I wonder whether those who framed the Bill were aware of that, and provided for it.

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question that I have not had cause to think about before now. [Interruption.] I have just been inspired.

Ross Cranston: May I help my hon. Friend?

Jane Kennedy: Let me just share my inspiration first. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but that this is not an issue for this moment. I
 have not been invited to consider it before now. It is something that we will probably need to return to.

Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend has stated the position, which has been accepted in case law; I assume that that applies in Northern Ireland, too. A Minister can never act by himself or herself, but has to act through delegation. That is why those who drafted the Bill have simply assumed that when the Secretary of State is mentioned, we mean persons to whom decisions can be delegated. How far down the chain the delegation goes depends on the nature of the office and the position of the civil servant making a particular decision.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I shall come in a moment to the matter of the Chief Constable.

David Trimble: I am not sure whether the inspiration that the Minister received covers my point. She might want to arrange with officials for it to be explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a difference. He has given the classic position with regard to Whitehall Departments, but there is a difference; I might even explain it to the hon. and learned Gentleman myself.

Jane Kennedy: Members of the Committee have raised legitimate concerns about the role that staff of members of the board might play in the event of sensitive information being shared with the board, either through the small committee or by any other means. Personal staff working for board members are not staff of the board. The latter are appointed under paragraph 13 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, and it is only board staff that may have access to the sensitive information, and therefore only they who are covered by the offence. They will provide the supporting role to the small committee that we discussed, and will service it in an administrative capacity. I hesitate to mention this, but it may interest the Committee to know that some board members have asked whether, given their heavy workload, they should have dedicated research staff to assist them, in a party capacity, with their work on the Policing Board. That is one consideration that we had in mind.
 It was preferable for staff conducting such research to be employed by the board, much in the way that Library staff may conduct research on behalf of a Member of the House of Commons, but are employed by Parliament. Although that is not entirely relevant to the clause, it may be useful for hon. Members to know our view, which was informed by considerations of that nature.

David Wilshire: That is the answer that I expected and hoped that I would get. Individual members of staff of individual members of the board should be excluded. However, the Minister may need to reflect on what would happen if an individual on the board member's personal staff saw something inadvertently; by opening information posted to the board member,
 for example. In those circumstances, would it be a defence to say, ''I didn't actually know what was in the package but I received it and I shouldn't have done''?

Jane Kennedy: It would not be an offence because such an individual was not covered by the provisions. Such difficulties could arise between hon. Members and staff and it would depend on the behaviour of the individual staff member as to what consequences would ensue.
 It may help if I share with hon. Members the position of the Chief Constable. The reference to the Chief Constable also includes officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Case law establishes that statutory reference to a Chief Constable does not necessarily mean that he or she must act personally. When necessary, the Chief Constable may delegate functions to another officer at an appropriate level. 
 In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, we discussed whether the clause was drawn too narrowly with regard to the ombudsman. Given the valid concerns raised about the drafting, I will re-examine the precise terminology of the clause and may return to the matter on Report. It may not be necessary because of the way in which the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable are defined; a similar definition may apply to the other organisations.

David Wilshire: The Minister had me eating out of her hand with her answer that the reference to Chief Constable could apply to another officer. However, at the very end she added, ''at an appropriate level''. The question arises whether that was a slip of the tongue. I am not criticising her, but what is ''an appropriate level''? We cannot afford to be sloppy about this matter because there will be a lot at stake if somebody is accused of breaking this particular law. I am sure that the answer will not be at the Minister's fingertips and I am happy to receive one later.
 I wanted to return to the question of the staff of the Secretary of State. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, it would be helpful to have a clearer definition before Report of how far down the Northern Ireland Office the definition goes. Is there a level of appropriateness, or does it go right to the bottom? If the Minister replies in writing, I especially wish to know whether the Secretary of State's special advisers or members of his or her press office would be defined as staff in these circumstances.

Jane Kennedy: Given the nature of those questions, I am grateful to have been invited to write to members of the Committee and will do so. It will be valuable to explore the detail with my own officials and take legal advice as to precisely how the definitions in the Bill have been drawn. Further amendment may not be necessary because of case law, but I would like to be certain that that is the case. I am more than happy to write to members of the Committee to clarify that position. The matter is important and we must get it right.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Special committee of the Board

David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in
clause 21, page 14, line 38, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 100, in 
clause 21, page 14, line 38, leave out '5' and insert '7'.
 Amendment No. 92, in 
clause 21, page 14, line 38, after 'members', insert 
 'who shall have been positively vetted by the Security Service'.
 Government amendment No. 77.

David Trimble: Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 relate to the establishment of the special committee of the board, which is part of the arrangements that we have talked about on many other occasions. The clause was added at the last minute in another place. I have listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh talking about the perils of the Report stage and the nasty things that can happen to people during it. I must say that my colleagues in another place would agree with him, because things happened to them on that occasion.
 Amendment No. 91 would remove the word ''shall'' and replace it with ''may''. That would create a situation in which the Policing Board was not under a legal obligation to create such a committee and could choose whether to do so. That would give the Policing Board the option. It also enables my colleagues on the Policing Board to let the Committee and the Minister know that they take great exception to that obligation. The Policing Board was not consulted about the changes; I think that the Minister would accept that. The Policing Board would prefer not to be consulted on certain matters on which there are likely to be political differences. However, the Policing Board was not consulted on this issue that deals with its internal workings. Will the Minister tell me who was consulted? My party's representatives on the board were not consulted and, as far as I am aware, no member of my party was consulted. When the Government tabled the amendments in another place, they offered information and briefings on the matter to one of my colleagues who was, at that stage, indisposed and not in a position to take advantage of it. However, that was a briefing, not a consultation. 
 I wish to place on record the fact that we take grave exception to the Government bringing forward an important series of changes to the operation of the Policing Board without consulting the board. The board, as the Minister knows, has been remarkably successful in its operations and the Government have unilaterally introduced changes without consultation. I will wait to hear what the hon. Member for East Londonderry says, but I suspect that his party's representatives were not consulted either. The Government are very foolish to proceed in such a high-handed, unilateral way with a board that is working successfully. 
 There is considerable anger about the issue among my party's representatives on the Policing Board. They 
 will be delighted if the present provision, which places them under a legal obligation to form such a committee, is amended to give them discretion. They are presently not minded to form a committee if the option is available to them. That is a serious matter in itself, but leaving aside the more general issue of the failure to consult, one may doubt whether it is a good idea to create such a committee at all. The establishment of a committee would create different classes of members within board. The committee would handle sensitive information, giving rise to difficulty. I have already argued on other amendments that such problems would not arise if the provisions relating to the disclosure of information were drawn more sensibly and more tightly. The provision is ill advised and consequential on other ill-advised changes that have been made. 
 The Bill, as presently drafted, provides an avenue whereby matters that relate to national security will be communicated, or might be communicated, to the committee of the board. It would not be inappropriate to have a safeguard with regard to the persons who are on the board to ensure that they are fit and proper to receive the information. That explains amendment No. 100, which would give rise to some interesting situations, were it to be carried into effect and were positive vetting to be required with regard to the occupations of members of the Policing Board. 
 Although some hon. Members, such as myself, might find it slightly amusing, there is a serious point concerning the failure of communication, the failure to consult and the failure to bother to find out what were our views on the matter. I want the Minister to say who was consulted, whose idea it was, where it came from and what dirty little deal lies behind it.

Seamus Mallon: I wish to pursue my amendment No. 100. I noted the gleam in the eye of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann as I got to my feet. Let me put him out of his pain. When a person is an ''ex'' in various ways, he is no longer a member of the consultable class. I fall into that category and it is from that position that I address my little amendment. I noticed the gleam in the right hon. Gentleman's eye about my amendment, which would make the momentous change to the number of members of the committee from five to seven.
 I await the exercise of the right hon. Gentleman's sense of humour about those figures. I could try to be funny about them, too. Let me try to be at the start. Who will the five be? There are four political parties on the board. Will there be one person from each party? That makes four. Then there has to be another one. There are nine independent Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, so there will have to be an independent member. Will the member be a nationalist independent or a Unionist independent? 
 There is a second problem with the figure of five. The board is working well, as are the chairman and vice-chairman. I do not want a situation in which their role and approach is disrupted. In many ways, they are complementary roles. Do we include the chairman and the vice-chairman on such a committee? If we do, then there are three members. We then have to divide three into four, plus one, which would cause difficulties. 
 There is not a suitable number. It is a little like the debate that we have just had on the penalty in cases that will probably never be brought to court. I do not think that there is a suitable number, but the most unsuitable number would be five, for the reasons that I have given. 
 I, too, do not want a Policing Board on which there are good and bad members, equal members and those members who are more equal than others. That does not lead to the type of rapport that is necessary within a board, especially one that will be under such pressure. However, that is what is in front of us. We are working on the numbers. 
 I have tabled an amendment that replaces five with seven. I could immediately point out the difficulties with seven, too, but they are less than they would be with five. 
 Another question must be asked. In the experience of the Policing Board to date, had this provision been included from the beginning, how many times would the Committee have met? It is my understanding—although it may be faulty—that it would never have met, because there have not been any requests for information of this nature. 
 There probably will be such requests in the future. There might be cases where people will try not just to use that provision, but to abuse it. Those things may happen, but the element of collective self-preservation as a board will come into play as well: the capacity to sustain a difficult board such as this in difficult circumstances on a very difficult issue would substantially increase if there were more than five people. However, I repeat that I do not believe that any number is ideal because there is not a perfect way of arranging this. 
 I have made my point about seven, and I can anticipate some of the permutations that will be referred to—probably very shortly. They are as obvious as the permutations with regard to five, but they are less damaging and dangerous. If I had set out to pick the wrong number, I would have arrived at five.

Gregory Campbell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman with regard to arriving at a number that would minimise if not eliminate the difficulties. Looking at the permutations, it is very difficult to arrive at a number that would achieve that, and which would command consensus on the Policing Board and among the communities in Northern Ireland.
 In response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I should say that my party was not consulted on this issue. This is not the first time that it has not been consulted. The Government make a regular habit of not consulting my party. We find it difficult to get meetings with the Prime Minister, and we have some, but a little less, difficulty in meeting the Secretary of State. We do not take less offence at not being consulted than the right hon. Member for 
 Upper Bann, but as that is a regular occurrence we have become more accustomed to it. 
 I understand why the right hon. Member for Upper Bann wants to replace ''shall'' with ''may''. I assume that if his amendment is agreed to the board may decide to constitute a committee, and that if it did so that committee would have five members. The right hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement. If that were the case, notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I find it difficult to arrive at a number that everyone would be content with. If that could be achieved, I would be broadly supportive of amendment No. 91.

David Wilshire: The debate has been interesting thus far. I shall start by speaking to amendment No. 91. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made a sensible, practical point, as well as an important point of principle. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, there has not yet been need for such a committee. Speaking as one of the liberal politicians who is well to the centre of British politics and who hates waste, we should not force the board to set up a committee—it would cost money to set up and staff the committee—until that committee has a need to meet. As the clause stands, the first thing that must happen after the Bill is enacted is the establishment of the committee. If I understand the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh correctly, it will be set up to do precisely nothing. For practical reasons, using the word ''may'' is much more sensible than using the word ''shall''.

Seamus Mallon: Again, if the hon. Gentleman attributes something to me, may I respectfully ask that he at least does that accurately? We have debated the reasons why the committee will be set up and why there should be a committee for most of the day. I have not suggested that it will do nothing. I said that it has not met before now because it does not exist under legislation, and I said that I do not understand why that was not pursued before—I may be wrong about that. However, the hon. Gentleman should understand that the committee could be a crucial factor for the board because the alternative to it might well be a running veto between the Chief Constable and the board, with the Secretary of State somewhere in between. The everyday working of the board would be in an impossible position because of failure to implement a means whereby board members could rightly ask for sensitive information.

David Wilshire: I was coming to much of that. All that I was doing was talking about practicalities. I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that there has not been an episode thus far that would have required the committee, and that is why using the word ''may'' is much more sensible and practical than using the word ''shall''. I shall argue in a moment whether the approach of having a committee is a good idea.
 If the committee is a way to solve a problem, it should be provided for on the statute book and the provision should be ready to use when necessary. All that I am saying in support of the amendment is that we should not go through such a rigmarole and spend money on the paraphernalia of a committee until it is 
 needed. It is not needed at this moment on a Thursday afternoon.

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman asked rhetorically why the measure is not on the statute book. That is because the Government refused to include a method in the 2000 Act to deal with the matter. That is one reason why we are back three years later and trying to get the legislation right.

David Wilshire: That may be so, but I thought that we were discussing what should happen when the committee is on the statute book, not whether it should be on the statute book. The amendment addresses what the wording of the Bill should be. I am not arguing at present that we should not be able to set up the committee. All that I am saying—this is the third time that I have tried to get the hon. Gentleman to understand my practical point—is that we should have the committee, if it will help, but the board should not be required to set it up until there is a job for it to do. There might be an episode that requires the committee on the day on which the Bill is passed, but there might be a year before such an episode crops up. The time to spend money on the structure of the committee is the moment when the committee is needed—that is all that I am saying at the moment. No member of the Committee has said that there is a backlog of things to do that cannot be done because the committee does not exist. It would probably save a small amount of taxpayers' money if we supported the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and I am more than happy to do that.
 The right hon. Gentleman wanted to register his concern about not being consulted. He is right to be upset. I noted that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said modestly that he is now an ex-important person. That is nonsense. He is still a very important person but, in his view, times have moved on and he was not consulted. I imagine, however, that he is probably speaking on behalf of the SDLP and that it was not consulted.

Seamus Mallon: I look forward to being with the hon. Gentleman when he reads the Official Report. I am not of the consultable class because of my status as an ex-everything. One aspect of being an ex is that I do not know what is going on around me because no one is interested in what I think any more. There are certain luxuries to being an ex. We do not have to go through the tedium of consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is no free-standing SDLP, as he implied. We are a political party. It may come as a shock to him, but there are political parties in the world that act as one.

David Wilshire: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lecturette on the unity of political parties. Perhaps he can tell me how that can be achieved within my political party.

Paul Goodman: Surely my hon. Friend should remind the Minister and the Government that they, too, need to consider unity following yesterday evening's vote.

Joe Benton: Order. We are not about to debate the definition of unity within political parties. Will hon. Members return to the amendment?

David Wilshire: I thought that you might say that, Mr. Benton. At least, it has prevented me from having to think up a suitable response to my hon. Friend. That is something for the Strangers' Bar after the end of our sitting.
 The right hon. Gentleman said that the Ulster Unionist party was not consulted. I was about to suggest that the entire membership of the SDLP was not consulted, but I am not sure that that was what I heard. The matter may just be a wicked SDLP plot.

Seamus Mallon: Of course, it is. Everything that has happened in the north of Ireland over the past 30 years is a wicked SDLP plot. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well. It was said earlier that political parties do not have the right to negotiate, to lobby, to put a point of view or to try to convince people. I still believe that the political process is about trying to convince people who do not agree with a certain view, that that view is valid.

David Wilshire: That is interesting. I was speculating that such matters may be an SDLP plot, because that would undermine the thesis of some people. The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that the Democratic Unionist party had not been consulted. If the UUP, the DUP and the SDLP were not consulted, it would probably follow that the answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann was that the wicked plot was dreamt up by Sinn Fein-IRA, and that would make a useful discussion.

Gregory Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he has received an unequivocal assurance from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that the Ulster Unionist party was not consulted? He has received an equally unequivocal assurance from me that the Democratic Unionist party was not consulted, but he has not got anything like an unequivocal assurance from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the SDLP was not consulted.

David Wilshire: That is so, but I was simply hoping that it would be possible to exempt the SDLP from this complaint. It would have been nice to focus all our ire on Sinn Fein-IRA.
 There is a difficulty, Mr. Benton. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull has had to go somewhere else, which leaves me speaking not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of my party. As the acting official spokesman of my party I have been given a brief headed ''Conservatives—points to make''. On the point about this change I have to read the following. Under the heading ''Government Concessions''—I like that bit—it states: 
''In response to Conservative and Unionist pressure on this issue the Government brought forward a number of measures at Third Reading in the Lords designed to allay our concerns.''
 I am afraid that, rather than it being the fault of Sinn Fein-IRA, it seems that we might have been responsible for this. That puts me in a rather uncomfortable position.

Paul Goodman: As the brief cannot possibly be mistaken, could it be that the SDLP has acted after Conservative pressure on it to put pressure on the Government?

David Wilshire: It may try to take credit for our achievement on this occasion. However, in case either the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or the hon. Member for East Londonderry are concerned, I must point out that when I say that the Conservative and Unionist party has done something I do not seek to claim the credit for it. It is just that we have not got round to changing our name after some events a few years ago. This puts the blame entirely on my shoulders.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising the enormous power and influence that my party exercises in the House of Lords.

David Wilshire: If I were not constrained here I would try to explain all this as best I could. I will simply mention that one of my anxieties about this approach to a problem is that setting up a committee of this sort runs the danger of creating two classes of member: those who have all the information and those who do not. Having been around the world of politics, committees, boards, authorities and ultimately Parliament itself, I know what it feels like to be one of those members who are tagged on to be there when it is necessary but excluded when something interesting or important happens. That is not necessarily a recipe for a harmonious, effective, well-integrated board that includes everyone. Nevertheless it is a concession by the Government to try to meet some of the objections. Indeed my colleagues in the other place argued in favour of it, but I have some concerns about it.
 In amendment No. 100 the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh argues for having a committee of seven members rather than five. I would argue the other way round. The more people who are included in a process like this, the greater the risk of a leak. The more people who know something, the more there are to spread it around a bit. I would even question whether five was an adequate number. I certainly would not argue that seven was because that is almost half the board and so one might as well let all of them become involved. 
 If it is felt that only a few should be involved, it shows that there are genuine concerns in someone's mind—presumably, the Minister's—that a number of members of the board could not be trusted on these occasions. If we have got to that situation, that in itself will cause offence to those who are excluded and would be an argument for including more. However many more are included—seven, eight or nine—someone will still be excluded. Those people will be offended, because of the reasons why they cannot be involved. 
 I am also concerned—I will not, on this occasion, attribute any of these thoughts or comments to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, but will make them as my own—that politicians have something of a reputation for being less reliable than others when it comes to information. Their stock in trade is to try to obtain an advantage. People who seek to use 
 information in a way that perhaps the Act would not tolerate, are, I believe, called spin doctors. 
 If we were to go down the committee route, it would therefore seem sensible to me to exclude all of the political appointees to the board. I can only begin to imagine what effect that would have. It would presumably undermine the hon. Gentleman's confidence in the process, so there would be an argument about that. 
 However, the Act will probably say that the chairman or the vice-chairman of the board should be involved. I would argue that, if we were to go down that route, a sub-committee consisting of the chairman and two non-party political members of the board would be the best approach. I realise that I am an Englishman talking about the best way of doing something from my experience, and I can understand the arguments as to why it would not work in Northern Ireland. However, I worry about that matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on my suggestion, I should be interested to hear what he has to say. 
Mr. Mallon rose—

David Wilshire: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might wish to comment.

Seamus Mallon: I can never resist temptation. The hon. Gentleman speaks about Northern Ireland in a rather condescending tone, but I can forgive him that—probably. However, he should bear in mind that, in Northern Ireland, the people who represent political parties on the board approach that from a political position. An additional complication is that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Policing Board, for whom I have enormous respect and of whom I would make no criticism, are actually appointees not of the board, but of the Secretary of State, so that reduces the options further.
 I ask the hon. Gentleman, since he invited me to comment and I was foolish enough to accept his invitation, to remember something that we all should remember about Northern Ireland, that there is no such thing as absolute independence, because that is not the type of world that we live in. It may, however, be the type of world that the hon. Gentleman lives in, in which case I envy him.

David Wilshire: I think that I was trying to make those points. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if they came across in a condescending way. He should know me well enough to understand that I have always tried my level best to indicate that Northern Ireland is not England.
 The only point that I will make in response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because you will rise from your Chair quickly if I go too far, Mr. Benton, is that Northern Ireland and England are both part of the United Kingdom, and I believe that we should be taking steps to see to what extent we can develop the same situation in all parts of the UK. 
 Although I accept and understand that Northern Ireland is different, and that is why I said what I did, I make no apology for trying to determine to what extent Northern Ireland can be brought further into 
 the mainstream of the UK. That is the future that I would want for the Province, as would the majority of the people who live there. I meant what I said to be a political statement of what I believe, but I did not mean it to be condescending. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, but that is what democracy is about. 
 I shall now comment on amendment No. 92, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He was too modest and too gentle a gentleman to expand on why that amendment would be interesting under certain circumstances. I support the principle behind the amendment, and that is why I was exploring how far down the chain of command information could pass. I believe that, for all the reasons that we have given about sensitivity in the public interest, and the risk to individuals, that sort of information, passed to somebody else, can have catastrophic consequences. 
 There ought to be some mechanism for determining who is entitled to receive it. It might be by done by grade or category of staff. The right hon. Gentleman has hit on something important: it is not unreasonable to ask to have people positively vetted before they receive information that could have a significant security element. I, too, would be delighted to see members of terrorist organisations having to submit themselves to positive vetting. If they want to be part of the inclusive process—they say that they want all of that so that they can take part—it is not unreasonable to ask them to prove that they are no longer terrorists. One of the best ways to prove that is to be positively vetted. I do not see why anybody should take exception to it. 
 When the right hon. Gentleman penned the amendment, he was right, and I support him. However, it does not say that the result of the positive vetting has to be positive rather than negative. It is possible for somebody submitted to positive vetting to fail. As the amendment stands, to submit oneself to positive vetting but to fail would meet its requirements. I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman means, but we should be clear that it should not just happen, it should be satisfactory. 
 I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on Government amendment No. 77 and to catching your eye again, Mr. Benton, if necessary.

Paul Goodman: May I make some inquiries of the Minister in the context of amendment No. 91, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann? So far, the debate has taken place entirely with reference, so far as I can see under clause 21(3), to new sub-paragraph (1A)(a), that is to say, in the context of information being supplied to the Committee by the Chief Constable. However, my eye has fallen on new sub-paragraph (1A)(b), which refers to the sub-committee's being able to perform
''such other functions of the Board as may be delegated to it by the Board''—
 so the committee of the board, once established, might consider functions other than the handling of sensitive information. I am curious to know from the Minister what those functions might be. I had presumed that the board would have the freedom to set up 
 committees on an ad hoc basis to consider suitable matters. For example, if a committee wished to consider the ''Code of Ethics'' it would be free to do so. 
 I wonder whether, by setting up the committee to perform other functions, new sub-paragraph (1A)(b) presents a potential difficulty in that the committee will now have to consider all the other functions and the board will not be able to set up other committees to consider matters other than the handling of sensitive information. If that is so, the board might have a problem in that it might wish to have the flexibility to set up, ad hoc, other committees to handle other matters. However, it will not be able to do that because of the drafting of the Bill; those other matters will now have to be considered by the committee of five people, which will have a set membership that cannot be moved around. When the committee is established, it must have the same five members as the Minister proposes. I am curious to know her response to that point because the drafting is such that the Bill might accidentally contain an element of inflexibility that the Government do not intend. 
 The final words of the clause state that the committee 
''shall as far as practicable be representative of the Board.''
 I assume—I should think that the Minister also assumes—that when the board sets up the committee, it will seek to make it representative. Therefore, why did this consideration have to be spelled out in the Bill?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Spelthorne will be horrified when I tell the Committee that I found myself in broad agreement with much of what he said. I hope that he will not take that as an encouragement to speak at length on other matters, but on this occasion many of the concerns that he raised were very well expressed.
 We should not dismiss the fourth page of the hon. Gentleman's briefing because the Ulster Unionist party and Opposition peers in another place raised concerns about the handling of sensitive information; in particular, that which could endanger life. The special committee approach is an attempt to address those concerns; it offers a practical solution to the issue by ensuring that sensitive information that is made available to the board has a small circulation. 
 It would be wrong of me to fail to respond to the criticism of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for East Londonderry. Both of them represent parties that were not consulted on this issue, and I apologise for that. I failed to follow through vigorously enough with regard to the necessity of keeping in touch with those parties that have played a constructive role on the board, alongside the party of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, by largely working together in a consensual way. The right hon. Gentleman has reported and reflected the anger and offence that is felt by members of his party, and I am sure that members of the Democratic Unionist party feel similarly; I am disappointed that this has happened. 
 Briefings and discussions were conducted in another place. There are no excuses for what happened, but the reasons for the failure to consult fully include the time pressure under which we were operating and the unavailability of the representatives of the party of the right hon. Gentleman at that time, to which he referred. It is also fair to say that the board took a collective view that, on matters such as this, consultation should be with political parties rather than the board, although that does not get me off the hook of failing in the way that the right hon. Gentleman describes. 
 I am grateful for this opportunity to listen again to the concerns about this matter. The debate has been very useful and constructive. It has revolved around the issue of how we enable the board to carry out its function in a proper and appropriate manner while safeguarding the detailed information that the Chief Constable may have to share with the board from time to time. 
 The amendments deal with the arrangements for establishing a small committee, as we all know from the previous debate. The thinking behind the clause was to ensure that the most sensitive information could be kept in tight circulation within the board in order to protect it. Members of the Committee will appreciate that restricting circulation to small numbers is an important principle in safeguarding sensitive information, and it seemed prudent to put in place an arrangement that does that. We have already discussed under clauses 9 and 18 the occasions on which the Chief Constable might do that. Essentially, those occasions are in the context of the report requested under section 59 of the 2000 Act or in response to a request for information under new section 33A to that Act, which is introduced under clause 18. 
 The Government think that there is value in establishing a small group within the board, possibly following a request from the Chief Constable. I do not intend to create a two-tier board, and I was interested to hear the comments about that. It would be an unhealthy development, and would disturb what has so far been a very constructive working board. The creation of such a small group has value and means that sensitive information can be shared without being exposed to wider circulation. That should enable the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State to be more open in the sharing of such information. 
 Amendment No. 91 is interesting and proposes that the board have discretion over whether to set up such a committee. Of course, if the amendment were made and the board chose not to set up a small committee, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State could take that into account in deciding the extent to which sensitive information should be shared with the board; it would have been the board's choice, in such circumstances, not to set up the committee. It would then be at the discretion of the Chief Constable and, ultimately the Secretary of State, as to whether that made it inappropriate for sensitive information to be shared. 
 If we were just dealing with information covered under the grounds of referral in clause 22, as recommended by the Patten report, I would be less concerned about the amendment. However, the Bill provides that other sensitive information that, if disclosed, could put someone in danger—that issue in particular caused concern in the other place—should not form a ground for referral to the Secretary of State, but rather should be shared only with the small committee of the board, thus restricting its circulation. Without a small committee and a further change to re-include that information in the grounds of referral in clause 22, the Chief Constable would have no choice but to share that information with the full board. For the sake of the person whose life could be in danger, I believe that that would be going a step too far. 
 One possibility might be for the board to have discretion over whether to set up such a committee—that, broadly, is what the right hon. Gentleman suggests—unless specifically asked to do so by the Chief Constable. The hon. Member for Spelthorne made a valid point about requiring the committee to be set up only when it is needed. I understand the sense and value of that, but what should be the trigger for the establishment of such a committee? The right hon. Gentleman for Upper Bann might like to reflect on that in his reply. It may be that the principle of a committee is anathema to his party; that would present a different set of issues. However, if the committee is potentially workable, he might like to consider the matter. I am genuinely interested to hear what Committee members have to say about it. 
 If the board asks for sensitive information requiring limited distribution, the Chief Constable should not be torn between his statutory duty to account to the board and his other duty to protect information that, if disclosed, could endanger someone's life. Similarly, should the Secretary of State have the power to require the board to set up such a committee? At present, the Bill allows him the discretion to require the Chief Constable to share certain information with the committee rather than with the rest of the board. If no such committee existed, that discretion would be fettered. Is it preferable in such circumstances for the Secretary of State to be forced to choose between withholding the information from the board and sharing it with the full board? Would it not be better for him to have the option of knowing that there would be a small committee with which the information could be shared? It is the consideration of those issues that led us to introduce an amendment in another place. 
 I have listened to the Committee's views on the proposals, and there may be more to say on it. I am reluctant to support amendment No. 91 as currently framed, but I will reflect further on what has been said and, if appropriate, reconsider for Report. 
 Amendment No. 92 proposes that all members of the committee should be vetted by the security service. I do not agree with that. It is important that the members of the committee are selected not by a Government agency but by their cross-community 
 peers on the board. Such selection gives them credibility.

David Wilshire: I do not think that amendment No. 92 proposes that the board members should be selected by a Government agency. It says only that steps should be taken to ensure that the people who are elected by their community conform to the reasonable norms of a civilised society, which terrorists do not.

Jane Kennedy: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the effect of the amendment would be the same. As members of the board, the duties placed on them would require them to behave responsibly in dealing with such information.

David Wilshire: I am sorry to hear the Minister say that, because we were getting on rather well. If the effect of amendment No. 92 would be to exclude terrorists from the process, that is a good reason for supporting it.

Jane Kennedy: I do not share that view. It is worth remembering that board members also have a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to act in any way that would infringe an individual's article 2 rights under the European convention on human rights. When the Chief Constable has shared with them information, the disclosure of which could put an individual in danger, board members have a duty to protect that individual. That duty is supplemented by the offence that we just discussed in debating clause 20.
 I accept the point that a limited amount of information relating to national security may be shared with the small committee and that that is a different category of information. However, it would only be shared at the discretion of the Chief Constable and/or the Secretary of State, both of whom would want to exercise their judgement on how to strike the balance between safeguarding the national interest and ensuring openness and transparency. 
 As such, there is no fundamental difference from the present position. It is already the Chief Constable's discretion, under the terms of section 59, to decide whether to share such information with the board or to refer the request to the Secretary of State, and it is already the Secretary of State's discretion to decide whether to uphold the board's original request. The creation of the small committee does not change that principle. However, it provides a third option for the Chief Constable and Secretary of State that would keep the sensitive information on a smaller circulation, a situation to which my hon. Friends will be unused. It is an occasion on which size really does matter; it is the size of the committee, not its individual members, that is important. 
 Amendment No. 100, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, would increase the committee's size from five to seven members. The value of the small committee is that its membership is significantly smaller than the board, and I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne on this point. At five, its membership is significantly smaller than the board, which keeps the circulation of sensitive information to fewer people. The Bill proposes that the committee should have five members, selected by and broadly representative of the board. It also proposes that at 
 least one of the chairman and vice-chairman should sit on the committee, although given the cross-community nature of their roles, the board might decide that both should sit on the committee. However, that would be a matter for further debate.

Gregory Campbell: On the Minister's point about the cross-community nature of the chair and vice-chair, will she accept that both the chair and vice-chair have been quite explicit about where they are coming from—their community identification? The vice-chair is unequivocally and unapologetically a trenchant and specific nationalist, but the chairman has specifically said that he is not to be described as a Unionist.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that, but the chair and vice-chair have often been involved on occasions when the board has developed a small committee to address an issue. An effort has been made to ensure that each political party is represented and that a reasonable spread of politically independent members is included. However, a committee of seven board members would go too far, and I cannot support my hon. Friend's amendment. However, as with amendment No. 91, I shall reflect further on points made in the debate.
 Government amendment No. 77 will correct an omission from clause 21 as introduced in another place, and is broadly technical. 
 The hon. Member for Wycombe asked which functions would be affected. We had nothing specific in mind other than giving the board flexibility to task the committee with other work if it so chose. The provision will not override the board's existing powers to set up committees under paragraph 24 of schedule 1 of the 2000 Act.

Seamus Mallon: I wonder about the possible effect that the process of choosing, selection or election—whatever it may be—of five members of the board could have on the board's operation, given its composition. Will the Minister tell us the means by which the decision will be made? She said that vetting is out, and I agree with that totally. However, that could lead to another form of lobbying, which in turn could lead to horse-trading, which might be very dangerous. I am worried about that—has the Minister given it any thought?

Jane Kennedy: Indeed I have. I know that the board has drawn together small numbers of its larger membership to deal with difficult issues. The board has established the balance to which I referred by consensus among its members. My views on the shape of the committee and the mechanism that would trigger it are not set in stone and I have found the debate valuable. We have not worked through the way in which the process would operate—the board would largely determine that. It would bring together a small committee chosen by its peers—the board members.
 The debate has been far wider than I expected when I prepared my response but I am grateful for the views expressed. I hope to return to the matter on Report.

David Wilshire: Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann winds up the debate, may I
 say that I would be willing to go for the jugular of some Government Ministers, but not others? On this occasion, I ask the Minister to reflect carefully. Did I understand her correctly? When I talked about positive vetting, I pointed out that the changes that were being resisted would exclude terrorists. I did not say ''ex-terrorists'' or ''reformed terrorists''; I said that it would exclude terrorists. The Minister, if I heard her correctly, said that it would. I asked whether the intention was to allow in terrorists—not ex-terrorists or former terrorists. Even in a good-humoured Committee in which there is a good exchange of friendly views, there comes the odd moment when something like this is said. Whether I have misunderstood what was said or whether it was a slip of the tongue, I would like to get the matter clarified. Hansard will say tomorrow that a Government Minister said that it is their intention to allow terrorists into the process. That is what I think I heard. Rather than wrongly accuse the Minister, I would like to her reflect and to put the record straight.

Jane Kennedy: I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's analysis of my opposition to the vetting arrangements. It is important to bear in mind that paragraph 4(5) of part 11 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act states:
''The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as a member or as chairman or vice-chairman of the Board if satisfied that—
(d) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.''
 If it became clear that there was such a person on the board, it would be perfectly within the power of the Secretary of State to remove him from it. I hope that that allays the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. It certainly was not my intention to put anything on the record that was not strictly accurate.

David Trimble: I took the opportunity during the debate to refresh my mind on what exactly went on in the other place. What the Minister said about the origin of the clause does not give the whole truth of the matter. In another place, representatives of my party and of the Conservative party expressed considerable concern about the changes to allow disclosure of additional material to the court. We have argued against the changes proposed in the legislation that tilt the disclosure balance more in favour of the board and diminish the ability of the Secretary of State to resist disclosure. Such changes could put the Chief Constable under considerable pressure to disclose highly sensitive material.
 Noble Lords in the other place argued the same point, and the Government said that it was partly in response to those concerns that they were introducing this clause. That is not to say that this clause and its contents were introduced at the request of my hon. Friends or by representatives of the Conservative party in another place. A subtle shift is seen in that. There was no consultation on how to deal with those concerns, and my noble Friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass took exception to that when the matter was raised in the other place. There is a subtle distinction 
 between what the Minister presented and what actually happened. 
 The Minister acknowledged that the Policing Board was not consulted, nor were persons on the board. Friends on the Policing Board representing my party took grave exception to the proposal, just as they do not agree with the disclosure provisions in the Bill. My friends on the Policing Board are not pressing for those disclosure provisions. I suspect that the same is true of the representatives of the Democratic Unionist party. The disclosure provisions are a result from pressure from another quarter. Consequently, the committee, which results from those pressures, can be traced back to that quarter too. 
 I do not know the precise genesis of the idea of a committee. I asked the Minister to tell us a bit more about that, but she did not do so. Perhaps she will reflect on that at some point. She has offered an olive branch, and I do not wish to spurn it, so we shall see what can be done to consider the matter more closely. However, I think that the concept of the committee is bad. 
 I am indebted to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for jogging my memory about the provisions in subsection (3), on which the hon. Member for Wycombe, too, dwelt at some length. I am glad that the hon. Gentlemen did that, because the provisions are dangerous. There is provision in legislation for the Policing Board to form committees, and it has formed a large number of committees that are functioning well. However, there is no provision under existing legislation for functions of the Policing Board to be delegated to a committee. The committees that the Policing Board has so far formed are considering matters that will then be brought back to the board as a whole. There is a considerable danger that functions will be vested in a committee, and that the committee will then discharge part or all of the functions of the Policing Board. That is not a good idea. 
 One of the things that I might welcome were it not for a certain distaste for the source of the idea is the fact that the report was rightly critical of the Police Authority in that respect. As far as I can recall, Patten does not touch on that aspect of the old Police Authority. The old Police Authority tended to operate in a way that the clause would permit. The chairman and a few senior members of the board of the authority did the real work. The membership of the authority generally had little input into what happened, and they were frequently excluded by decisions being taken elsewhere. The provisions in question open the door to exactly replicating some of the vices of the old Police Authority within the Policing Board. 
 I am glad that other hon. Members have jogged my memory and I urge the Minister, in reflecting on the matter again, to think very hard about proposed new subsection (1A)(b) of the 2000 Act detailed in subsection (3), about which I am fairly certain my friends on the Policing Board would be upset. They would not want a situation to arise whereby functions of the Policing Board were transferred to, and discharged by, a five-man committee, which would be able to exercise those functions without reference to 
 the board as a whole. That would go some way towards recreating some of the vices of the old Police Authority, which would be a bad thing. 
 I emphasise that aspect of the provisions, which is not necessary for the function that the Minister advanced as a reason for having the committee. She touched on that only to say that there would be greater flexibility. However, flexibility might be used as an excuse for introducing something that in the long run would entirely change the character of the Policing Board, and that would be bad. The Minister should return to that. 
 I think that the concept of the committee is wrong in principle because of the creation of two separate classes of member. However, it is also wrong because it has been created simply to handle material that should not be before the board in the first place. If there is a need to ensure the confidentiality of that material, that underlines our concerns about the disclosure provisions and the lack of safeguards elsewhere. Rather than introduce the committee, it would be much better if the Minister were to reconsider the information disclosure provisions generally, and perhaps follow through on the suggestions that she made on how the provision would be modified. 
 Because the Minister indicated a willingness to think further on the matter and because I have presented the arguments on the provisions of subsection (3) to her for the first time, I do not think that it would be appropriate to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 77, in 
clause 21, page 14, line 41, at end insert— 
 '( ) handling information supplied to it by a person conducting an inquiry under section 60 or by a person who is assisting or has assisted in the conduct of such an inquiry;'.—[Jane Kennedy]
 Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries

Joe Benton: We now come to amendment Nos. 101, 102 and 103.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Can you help me? Sometimes I do not wholly understand the details that I am given. Amendment No. 101 to clause 22 would leave out lines 10 to 13 exclusively on page 15. My eye goes to the Bill. Amendment No. 103 would leave out lines 20 to 30, which would make sense if read inclusively. If it meant lines 20 to 29, the amendment would not make sense. To make sense of our debate, if lines 10 to 13 inclusive is the correct proposal and lines 20 to 30 inclusive are correct, the first amendment does not make sense. If it refers to lines 10 to 12 and line 13 stays in, amendment No. 103 would not make sense—or have I misunderstood the amendments?

Joe Benton: I accept the point. The best guidance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to allow the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to speak to the
 amendment. If the matter is not clear to him after that, we will revisit it.

Seamus Mallon: I told you, Mr. Benton, that I was not happy with the drafting of the amendments. It is my fault and I take full responsibility for it. I informed you and the Minister that I would withdraw them in the interests of accuracy and speed.

Joe Benton: The amendment is not moved.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: When I read the clause, I was worried that the information that
''ought not to be disclosed''
 was defined as ''sensitive personnel information''. I was rather surprised that the definition of personnel information was relatively restricted. That worries me, because I had assumed that included in that definition would use the word ''personal'' as distinct from ''personnel'', given that such information could be of a sensitive nature, too. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister why ''personal'' information is not on the list. 
 Currently, the information relates to an individual holding a job, an application for it and the appointment. As I read it, it also relates to the qualifications that someone may or may not have for that job. I am not sure that that is something that needs to be excluded. There could be circumstances in which, if an inquiry is being held into the appropriateness of the delegation of something, then it becomes quite appropriate to know that person's qualifications or what was said and done when the person was appointed to that job. I can see what is meant by sensitive personal information, but I do not like the definition. Will the Minister comment on that? 
 We have said before that there is a very real risk that certain information about people—not necessarily about their jobs or their technical qualifications, but about the person they are—ought not to be disclosed, especially where that could put that person at some individual risk. Why is only personnel information contained in the clause rather than personnel and personal information? Why should personal information be included only because part of the job arrangements will sometimes be relevant? 
 On clause stand part, I am concerned that clause 22(2)(b) states that, 
''any matter into which inquiry is to be made is a sensitive personnel matter''.
 I suspect that the Minister can see where I am going. What does ''sensitive'' mean? That is a fairly subjective statement. Some people might think that something is sensitive and other people might think that it is not. Where is the arbiter to whom that would be referred? Is there a legal definition of sensitive? I keep saying that I am not a lawyer but on this occasion I hazard a guess that there is not a legal definition of sensitive and that it has yet to be settled. 
 The Minister might like to think about providing a definition of sensitive, or providing some mechanism whereby any doubt about whether the information is so sensitive that such it ought to be excluded can be 
 tested against an independent arbiter. Alternatively, the Minister could provide of a definition of her own understanding of sensitive. I am interested in her views on those matters.

Jane Kennedy: The original change from ''personal'' to ''personnel'' was introduced because it brings the wording of the law explicitly in line with the wording used by the Patten report. The hon. Gentleman's question is valid: what sensitive personnel information did we have in mind when drafting that subsection? I offer this example. The information disclosed in vetting applications includes detailed information on an individual's financial circumstances. It can even include information on an individual's sexual behaviour and other intimate details. That is the information that we had in mind when we discussed sensitive personnel information.
 Such information is clearly very sensitive, and although it might not put an individual in danger, it does deserve to be protected. I do not mean that the board should not know whether an individual has been vetted or what the outcome of that was, but the board does not need to know all the information discussed in the vetting interview. The individual who would determine whether such information would be disclosed would be the Chief Constable. That relates to our earlier discussions, which I do not intend to revisit now. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Approval of proposals relating to inquiries

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 11, page 8, line 23, leave out '(2) and' and insert '(1A) to'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 79 and 80.

Jane Kennedy: Having moved the amendments, I shall deal with comments on them later in the debate.

David Wilshire: I am disappointed. It is difficult to comment on what the Minister means because she has not said anything about the amendments. Will she explain them, so that we can comment on them?

Jane Kennedy: In that case, I shall go into greater detail about the intentions of the amendments. I shall first explain the purpose of clause 11, while recognising that we will have a further opportunity to discuss it when we debate amendments Nos. 63 and 34. The clause will reduce the threshold of board members that is required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 of the 2000 Act from 10 to eight, provided that that is a majority of those present and voting.
 The Government made a commitment in the revised implementation plan of August 2001 to bring forward such a change in response to concerns expressed by several quarters that the existing arrangements under the 2000 Act set too high a threshold. Some were 
 worried that, in effect, that gave a veto to groups that were in the majority on the board. I recognise that the issue is sensitive, and that it echoes a debate running throughout politics in Northern Ireland about the checks and balances between majorities and minorities in many contexts. I believe, however, that the amended threshold, taken with the various safeguards that accompany it, strikes the right balance. 
 It has been suggested that the reduction would pave the way for minority groups within the board to force through inquiries against the wishes of the majority of members of the board. That is not so. I shall spell out the safeguards. For a start, a proposal to initiate an inquiry cannot come out of the blue. The board must commission a report from the Chief Constable under section 59 of the Act. It is only when that report has been received that an inquiry can be contemplated. It is inconceivable that a proposal for an inquiry would take a board member by surprise. 
 However, even at that point, there are several safeguards under paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. First, a request for the board to consider a case for an inquiry must be made in writing to the chairman by at least three members of the board. Secondly, the chairman is required to call a meeting within three working days of receiving such a request and to notify each member of the board of the date and purpose of the meeting. That means that all members of the board will be aware of the meeting and of the proposal that will be before them at that meeting. 
 Thirdly, there must be a gap between the chairman convening the meeting and it taking place. Those of us who remember the Labour party in the bad old days of the 1980s will remember how important such rules are when making sure that issues are not bounced through by groups. 
 Amendment No. 79 would amend paragraph 18(3) of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act to put beyond doubt that a minimum of six working days must elapse between the board chairman calling a meeting to discuss a proposal to set up an inquiry and the meeting taking place. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 are consequential changes. At present, the provision is ambiguous. It could be read either in the way that I have described—which is appropriate—or it could be said that the effect of the reference to ''that day'' in paragraph 18(3) is that the six-day period starts from the day on which the chairman receives the request to call a meeting. I recognise that that is an important safeguard in enabling all board members to attend such a meeting. It is important that there should be no ambiguity on the time scales. I hope that my explanation has satisfied the hon. Gentleman. It may even mean that his contribution to the debate will not be necessary.

David Wilshire: Wish on. I have one simple question about that explanation, for which I am most grateful and which covered the issues that, as the Minister knows, are controversial. The fact that I do not want to debate them with her does not mean that I agree with them. Near the beginning of her remarks, she said that the amendments were tabled as a result of pressure from some quarters. Which quarters?

Jane Kennedy: The amendments were tabled as a result of our discussions and the agreement that we reached with the Social Democratic and Labour party.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 79, in 
clause 11, page 8, line 23, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In subparagraph (3) for ''that day'' substitute ''the day on which the chairman calls the meeting''.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Paul Goodman: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in
clause 11, Page 8, line 26, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 32.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 34, in
clause 11, page 8, line 29, leave out subsection (3).

Paul Goodman: The amendment is straightforward. It would ensure that any reports or inquiries by the board were initiated by a majority of the board's members. The clause amends paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act on the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 following a report by the Chief Constable. Currently, no such inquiry can be held unless the required number of members of the board who are present and voting approve it. Under paragraph 18(6), that number is 10, which is a majority, as the board consists of 19 members. Under clause 11(2) and (3), however, that number is reduced from 10 to eight, so long as that is a majority of members present and voting.
 We believe that the existing arrangements should remain unchanged, but that when the board consists of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the required number of members present and voting to initiate an inquiry is 10. The Government's proposal is an unwarranted concession aimed at making it easier for the board to initiate inquiries following the Chief Constable's report. It makes it easier for those with excessive political zeal, or those who wish the police no good, to make the life of the Chief Constable intolerable. It scarcely needs me to point out that that is a particular worry if and when Sinn Fein members take up positions on the board. That, and the reductions of the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer such inquiries to the Secretary of State, should be opposed. That is not only our argument, but appears to be the view, if I read his comments correctly, of a previous Secretary of State who served under this Government; the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the architect of the 2000 Act, whose words on the Act have already been quoted extensively in our debates. On Second Reading of the Bill, he said: 
''If one considers police authorities in most parts of the United Kingdom, most people would think it extraordinary that it would take only eight members of a board to bring about the instigation of what could be a very major and expensive inquiry with major long-term implications for the police. I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill, and the Government believed that the figure of 10 was very much on the low side. We made it absolutely clear that, if we conceded to an ever-lower figure, that would risk exposing the police to unreasonable political pressure that would reduce the credibility of any such decision by the board. After all, it is a major step to set up an inquiry and, if it can be agreed by eight out of 18 or 19 members, that is bound to reduce the credibility of the decision. If the power was unreasonably or 
improperly used, it could lead to an unravelling of confidence by the police and the public in the PSNI's governance. I have heard the reassurances offered by Ministers on that point, but I have yet to be fully convinced that this particular change is necessary or desirable.''—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 684–5.] 
Those were the words of a former Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister and Government Back Benchers give them their full weight. They should ask themselves seriously what the right hon. Member for Hartlepool would do if he were sitting as a Back-Bench Committee member and voting on the Bill, the clause and, perhaps, the amendment. However, it is not only the right hon. Member for Hartlepool who supports our position. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, which is not an organisation that is always associated with the pronouncements of Conservative politicians, said in its submission to the Northern Ireland Select Committee: 
''We believe that while the holding of inquiries is an important power, there is no reason to lay down such weighted voted procedures in legislation and we would recommend that decisions to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority.''
 As with other aspects of the Bill, the Government have not even sought to justify the change with regard to the efficiency of the board or the operational effectiveness of the police. They have not to date shown any deficiencies in the current legislation that warrant it. We believe that that is because the change was driven purely by politics and the Government's desire to accommodate Sinn Fein and the SDLP at Weston Park in July 2001. The change proposed by the Government is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Our amendment would restore common sense and basic fairness to the Bill. It would also take us back to the position that was outlined so eloquently and sensibly by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, on Second Reading. We trust that the Government will listen to his wise words and that they will also display some common sense and accept this modest amendment.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Wycombe is right in describing the effect of the clause. It does exactly what he describes, but only provided that there is a majority of those involved in the decision present and voting. The changes introduced by the clause set a more realistic and appropriate threshold, notwithstanding the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. With the greatest respect to the concerns of hon. Members, I believe that their fears are overblown.
 The clause does not give any board member or group a licence to force through unpopular or unrepresentative decisions. It responds to a genuine feeling among some board members that the existing arrangements set too high a threshold and it provides a prospect—no more than that—that a group that perceived that it was a minority might at least have an opportunity to seek to initiate an inquiry if the circumstances warranted it. I hope that the Committee will give the clause a fair wind.

David Wilshire: That is not good enough. I am hearing an argument that says that one of the key principles of democracy ought to be undermined just to accommodate people. When one is using such a serious power, it is not reasonable to say we must rig
 the system so that a minority can have its way. What on earth has happened to the principle of democracy, by which the majority decides? We should try to integrate Northern Ireland more fully into the United Kingdom, rather than setting it apart and ignoring the rules of democracy in a way that we would not tolerate in Great Britain.

Paul Goodman: I was rather disappointed by the Minister's brief response. I hoped that she might advance a reason why the change would be beneficial for policing, and she did not. She simply said that the time had now come in which eight would be a sufficient number to determine the course of the kind of inquiry that might be made.
 This is an important moment in the progress of the Bill and the Committee because the tripartite relationship between the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable is at stake. It is pretty clear that the Minister does not agree with everything that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, the former Secretary of State, said on Second Reading. However, I do not think that she has sufficiently considered the fact that the delicate tripartite balance established in the 2000 Act is being nudged recklessly to give far more power of initiation to the board. The theme running through the clauses is that any shifts of power proposed in the Bill are generally towards the board. I cannot recall in the course of these debates one shift towards the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. 
 In certain circumstances, there could be Sinn Fein members on the board, and they could play a part in initiating inquiries that would be likely to have severe security consequences in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, that is the result of a deal done at Weston Park; not between all the parties involved in discussions with the Government on Northern Ireland matters, but purely between the nationalist—and indeed republican—side and the Government. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or the hon. Member for East Londonderry were there, or that their parties were consulted. It is entirely right that the nationalist parties should have their say on policing matters, but it seems extraordinary that the Minister will not accept our amendment and that she responds to it in this way, when the origins of the push for this part of the Bill comes from one side of the political community in Northern Ireland. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 Amendment made: No. 80, in 
clause 11, page 8, line 34, leave out 'held' and insert 'called'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
 Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Investigations into current police practices and policies

David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in
clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out 'he has' and insert 
 'the Board and the Secretary of State have'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 36, in
clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out from 'he' to end of line 2 and insert 
 'is of the view that the policy or practice should be considered given that a member of the Police Service acting in accordance with that policy or practice has committed a criminal offence, or is responsible for conduct that gave rise to disciplinary proceedings'. 
No. 107, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out 'public interest' and insert 
 'interests of upholding the rule of law.'.
 No. 95, in 
clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 3 to 7.
 No. 37, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(6) No investigation under this section shall extend to events or incidents that occurred before the coming into force of this section.''.'.
 No. 65, in 
clause 12, page 10, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(c) information the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.'.

David Trimble: We have little time. I draw attention to amendment No. 36, the important one in this group. It makes a simple point. The police ombudsman's essential function is to inquire into abuses by the police of their powers and to protect people from such abuses. Issues relating to practice and policy generally may arise out of such cases; hence the Patten report's references to practice and policy. However, it would be contrary to the essential concept of the ombudsman if he were to inquire into practice and policy generally, because those are matters for the Policing Board. It is a question of demarcation—
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [23 February 2003], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That clauses 12 to 16 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 12 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned at one minute past Five o'clock till Tuesday 4 March at five minutes to Nine o'clock.